Vile Darkness- Controversy and the past

[RobNJ]

I never advocated not printing the BoVD. I just think that there are a few items in the BoVD that probably push the limit and should be avoided in future products.

I never wanted to burn that book, I just wanted to burn part of it.

Saying you don't want to prevent the book from being published is pointless. You are censorious with regard to creative freedom. Period. When you see speech you don't like you want it to be stopped before it can spread. That is an indefensible position. Cop to it and quit trying to weasel out of it.

 

[RobNJ]

Ironically, I bet the people who will be most angry at the book will be the hard-core adult fans. I'm talking about those creepy people who live out their dark fantasies through RPGs and are always playing White Wolf and KULT. (You know the type of people that I'm talking about) I'm sure they'll be disappointed that the book doesn't contain rules for rape, bondage, and graphic dismemberment tables.

You had me until here. Really, where do you get off judging people for what kinds of games they like to play?

 

[Psion]

Then let that be an issue between the parents and their kids. I don't know many parents who let their kids spend their allowances on anything they want. Will some kids be prevented from playing d&d? Maybe. Will they find ways to play anyways? Probably.

Speaking as someone who grew up with kids who did have to be sneaky with their parents in order to play, I would rather see a D&D that did not provide bona fide reasons for parents to be concerned.

(I was lucky, my parents never batted an eyelash, even when I bought "Arcanum." But I would not have been surprised if they did raise concerns if they learned the game dealt with necrophilia.)

Further, it's not entirely empathy for the kids. New gamers invigorate the hobby and keep it alive. There have been times as an adult I have had to scrape for a group. You may some day come upon that situation as well. The gamers you could be playing with might be the ones that were prevented from entering the hobby because the lead publisher chose to be a little too edgy.

 

[RobNJ]

I think many (probably most) parents would be concerned about letting their children get involved with a hobby that speaks about necrophila.

The hobby already does.

No, I am afraid I don't.

You do too see his point, you're just pretending not to.

I don't agree. D&D's values are very mainstream. And PG-13 is what sells, not R.

I don't see how this quote has anything to do with Meepo's statement that there's already a lot that people would find objectionable in D&D. It's a game about engaging in homocidal vigilanteism and theft. It's a game with genocidal tendencies (which were lessened by the addition of non-uniform monster alignments in 3E). And that's just talking about the things that reasonable people can find offensive. Once you get into religious wackos, the list grows.

Oooh, Johnny Wilson's argument.

No, it's Meepo's argument. And the only thing I can get from this is that you're trying to insult Meepo by saying that he's using Wilson's argument. Now is that because Meepo is supposed to not be able to come up with ideas of his own, or is it because Wilson is fundimentally a bad person to compare him to? Exactly who are you trying to insult?

And, by the way, it's true. D&D is mostly played by adults.

Why? Because you are not only making material inappropriate for younger folks, but guess what: not all college age folks want R-rated stuff either. You ASSUME that college-age folks want this*. Not all of them do. Of those that really do, most of them are already sold on WW/BDGF. I don't think Johnny Wilson or WotC is doing anyone any favors by pandering to an audience that he doesn't have and is not likely to gain.

How very facile of you. You're intentionally perverting Meepo's point. It's not that all adults want this, it's that it's mostly going to be seen by adults, so any arguments about children being harmed are fundimentally stupid.

 

[DaemonBolo]

No you don't. Not when your morals are wrong.

To Rob:

Whoa!

Before I leave, I have to reply to this one. How on Earth can you make that statement? You are no longer arguing in the least. It's obvious that you enjoy turning the words of others to your own uses, totally ignoring intent on the part of those actually arguing a point.

No one has said that the material should be stiffled, or that any creativity should be limited. In fact, Psion said that WOTC should not be the one to publish the material. He never once said that the material should not be published. No one has advocated censoring you, although you want people to believe that you're tha damaged party and that only your opinion matters.

The problem with your time of argument is that it relies on vindictively bashing someone into submission. In fact, you are censoring the thoughts and the right of psion to disagree with you. On no level could you actually support that his morals are wrong. He does not agree with necrophilia or letting his kids view that material. That is a bad morals! I am sorry that you enjoy necrophilia. Do you work in a morgue by the way?

You seem to be on a righteous power trip at the moment. No one is allowed to differ from you. Of course, I am certain that you will support yourself by saying that you are not saying that Psion does not have a right to a viewpoint. He just has not right to publically disagree with your viewpoint.

I love to watch you cloak your idiocy in righteous statements. Yes, we are stiffling creative freedom. That is a load of bull. Your crass attitude goes farther toward stiffling free thought than anything Psion has said. In your world, free thought only works if it agrees with your own.

Bolo's have teeth!

 

[RobNJ]

Does expressing concern about something makes us fascists who are trying to bring down free speech?

No, advocating that those things shouldn't be published makes you fascists who are trying to bring down free speech.

Does expressing dissent with the marketing plan of a corporation make me anti-American.

Who the hell brought that up? No one's called you a traitor.

Is there some obscure need to see yourselves as champions of free speech, even when no one's attacking it?

Free speech is an invocation of the First Amendment, which I haven't done. I'm talking about simple moral values:

Live and let live.

Foster, do not try to suppress, creative expression.

You are morally required to not try to prevent the creative expression of people with whom you disagree. If you do that, you are behaving incorrectly.

 

[RobNJ]

The core of my issue is that I can empathize with the 10-15 year old kid who's suspended from school because he games.

And here's the core of my issue: The way to fix that isn't to stifle the expression of Wizards of the Coast. It is to attack those who had this kid suspended. Attack them as forcefully as you can. Or at least expend as much effort trying to shame the party who are actually guilty as you do attacking an innocent publisher.

Maybe all of you were the type of kid who rather enjoyed being suspended, or who wasn't bothered by rank injustice.

No. I'm the kind of person who would fight rank injustice. Not cower and lick and scrape and ask, "How have I offended thee, O Lord?"

I do not think the book should be banned on this account. But personally (as in, for ME, not for the entire publishing world), the first time I read a newspaper article about a group of kids who were suspended because the lunch lady heard them talking about necrophilic magic spells, it's going to sour all my subsequent dealings with the book.

And when you heard about James Bird or Matthew Shepard, did that sour you on all dealings with black people or gays?

If the immature gross-out spells and necrophilia haven't done that already, that is.

You have as of yet to defend your opinion with any descriptives. You just labeled it such. Therefore, it's exceedingly easy to discount.

 

[RobNJ]

My point is that we shouldn't be deliberately baiting them.

They're not. They're publishing the book they want to publish. And even if they were, so what? They're entitled. If Wizards published a book that said, "How to Kill and Eat Kittens," it would still be hypocritical and fundimentally immoral to try to prevent its publishing.

And maybe you haven't noticed, but the ACLU isn't very concerned about the rights of Anglo-Saxon kids anywhere, much less in the Midwest.

What a load of crap. You have to back this up with facts, or you'll only look more ludicrous.

 

[RobNJ]

Could someone just quote me a passage from this thread where someone tried to force their anti-BoVD beliefs on someone else?

If you could, would you have all the material in The Book of Vile Darkness you don't like expunged?

The answer is yes. Or if it's no, you've been misrepresenting yourself all along.

So right there, that's how you're trying to force your opinions on others. It doesn't matter that your wish will never come true. Having the wish alone is the sin, here, and is the thing that needs to be excoriated.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Hey Psion...

No, it's not incumbent on you. Your opinion really doesn't matter. Neither does mine. What it's incumbant on you to do is not to attack and advocate for the silencing of speech you don't like. What it's incumbent upon you to do is leave other gamers the hell alone and let them play the kind of game they want to and not stick your moralizing nose into things.

No you don't. Not when your morals are wrong.

Wow. Is it just me, or do those two statements NOT go together.

Of course, the whole incredibly stupid argument has been like that.

DaemonBolo hit it on the head Rob. Hang around and bait people if you want, but I've had enough.